First proposal to eliminate private club requirements surfaces

By law, all "new" drinking establishments in Utah are required to be
non-smoking.

And all "existing" drinking establishments are
required to be non-smoking in 2009.

@ uncannygunman and Dave

June 26, 2008 4:49 p.m.

It's not intrusive to have someone check your ID by scanning it... and it's far,
far less cumbersome than "joining a club". It certainly would reduce the hassle
of that mess. Scan me!

I think the private club law way too
"cumbersome" - like was mentioned above - that's the perfect word for it.

What is accomplished? You can say to those groups that believe "private
clubs" reduce underage drinking and drinking and driving because there is "a
record" of members (makes no sense), "Fine. What if you could have a record of
everyone that came to a bar on a given day without having the private club law?
And there is no chance of "I didn't read the date right" by the door person,
because the scanner does not go "green" when an underage license is scanned."
Such scanners are used in some Utah bars now.

Perfect. Oh, and I go
to bars. It's not like I'm saying this because I don't. I go to bars and don't
care if everyone knows I go to bars... SCAN THE FREAK OUT OF ME... just don't
make me join another "club" and renew my membership year, after year, after
year!

Dave

June 25, 2008 11:48 p.m.

@require scanning 757pm:

Exactly what do you propose to accomplish by
making a bar scan an ID of everyone who comes in?

If someone can come
up with a good fake ID (say, a friend or relative who looks somewhat like the
minor), that won't stop them.

And once they have scanned ID's, what
then? Do we turn all these records over to the government? To car insurance
companies so their rates can be raised? To their religious leaders, so they
know who to excommunicate?

I should be able to go into a bar and
drink responsibly, either by knowing my limit and winding down my drinking
early, or by having a designated driver. As an adult, it's perfectly legal to
do so, presuming I won't be DUI when i leave. Therefore, there's no need to
treat me like a criminal just because I do enjoy a drink.

Government
can butt out of my life. Enforce the existing DUI laws and put some real bite
in the penalties before you start making life harder for law-abiding citizens.

uncannygunman

June 25, 2008 9:40 p.m.

and to Require "Scanning"--you seem sincere, but worst. idea. ever. The idea is
to reduce intrusiveness and hassle, not increase it!

uncannygunman

June 25, 2008 8:53 p.m.

"[S]ome sort of "trade-off" must be offered to ease the concerns of some
lawmakers and groups opposed to drinking such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving."

In other words, one step forward and two steps back.At least
the article accurately notes that MADD is now against drinking in general, not
just drunken driving!

If you want a trade off that works for
everybody, ban smoking in the new "bars" and let private club owners decide the
question for themselves.

Higher standard!?!

June 25, 2008 8:07 p.m.

""I think what we do is hold these new clubs to a higher standard and we can use
that extra money for compliance and education, if we find there's a need,"
Mantes said."

What "higher standard"? Would that be? A higher
standard than what? You mean charge them more money... geez man, that makes no
sense...

Most of the "private clubs" should just be bars. Period.
If you're 21 you can come in. What in the world is wrong about that?

How does being "a member" prevent underage drinking, drinking and driving,
etc. It doesn't... that is why no one gets it.

Listen, EVERYONE
would be happy to join a "private club" if there was some good result of doing
so... if something was better because of it... but it is simply not the case.
Nothing is "better" because of the private club law.

Utah's liquor
laws are not too restrictive - they're just too cumbersome... and now "yet
another" type of license... geez...

Require "Scanning" - that's it!

June 25, 2008 7:57 p.m.

They should just legislate a requirement that all drinking establishments SCAN
any scannable ID (most are now) and keep a record of their patrons... and then
they'd actually have a record of who was in the bar that day... not just who is
a member of the bar.

SCAN IDs! That's it... no other "membership"
should be required.

Why would someone need to be charged more to be a
"non membership" bar? That seems silly. Just get rid of that private club
thing (expect for bar that want it) - and charge everyone the same fees for
being a drinking establishment - bar, tavern, private club should all pay the
same.

Drunks, Drunks Everywhere!

June 25, 2008 7:08 p.m.

Change the liquor law! But also change the DUI and public intoxication laws!

Let's truly separate the "social
drinkers" who think they are not hurting anyone, from those that are getting in
their cars after the partying.

DUI punishment is a joke! Get some
help or rot in jail!

Anonymous

June 25, 2008 4:53 p.m.

You people need to get a life as for Mr. Huntsman in November he won't get my
vote. Have you send the two sides of Jon Huntsman Jr. well I have and I don't
like either of them. The guy was born not with a silver spoon in his mouth but
it was gold. The guy knows nothing about how it is to live from day to day
because poor daddy has always given him and his family what they need and
wanted. The guy goes around the world to adapt a child when we have so many
right here in Utah who coulduse the help and a good family.Won't the cover
charge cost more the the membership because you would have to pay it each time
you go?

Dee

June 25, 2008 4:42 p.m.

It is about time that Utah lawmakers separated church from state. Kudos to Gov.
Huntsman for independant thinking.

Chris Plummer

June 25, 2008 4:31 p.m.

LOL... how long are the last days going to last... another 150 years?

last days?

June 25, 2008 4:25 p.m.

Oh no!A change in liquor laws in Utah?These are truly the last
days!

fine

June 25, 2008 3:24 p.m.

lets get this done people. i guess this is a fair trade off. but i dont know why
there has to be a 'trade off' to get rid of BAD LAW.